International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the law that aims to reduce human suffering in situations of armed conflict. The contemporary roots of treaty-based IHL could arguably be traced back to the four Geneva Conventions, in which Thailand is also a party. States may choose from a wide variety of methods to domestically implement IHL. One such method is through national legislation. The Geneva Conventions, in particular, obliged its state parties to criminalize grave breaches. This article aims to assess this one aspect of the domestic implementation of IHL within Thailand. To accomplish this, Swiss and Malaysian laws are used as examples for the analysis of Thai law to reflect upon. It is argued that the current rules scattered through the Thai legal system are doctrinally insufficient to ensure the complete applicability of the grave breaches regime. The article will then suggest how the current Thai legal regime may be improved to ensure better compliance with the obligations to prevent grave breaches within the Geneva Conventions.

The Thai Constitutional Court is undeniably influential on Thai constitutional law and the Court’s jurisprudence has certainly raised debates. This fact is excellently demonstrated by other entries of this journal issue. Indeed, the cases in the Constitutional Court's docket between 2019 to 2022 have continued to influence the public discourse. The year 2019 was when Thailand transitioned back to democracy (at least formally), with the election seeing General Prayuth Chan-o-cha remain as the Prime Minister, albeit now in a legitimately democratic form. As an aftermath of this election, many cases concerning qualifications for political positions arrived at the Constitutional Court's doorsteps. Apart from that, the three years after 2019 also saw the Court rendering significant decisions in terms of civil rights, while political actions (or mistakes) made by previous governments were adjudicated upon as well. In this compilation, 11 Constitutional Court cases, not discussed by other entries in this journal, have been chosen based on the author's perception of their significance and interestingness. Hopefully, these cases may be able to provide a glimpse of the Constitutional Court's influence on Thai society during these three eventful years.

This Commentary on thejurisprudence of the Thai Supreme Administrative Court(the "Court") in the year 2021 is based on an analysis of 120 Judgments and Orderson appeal.1The decisions reflect a broad spectrum of substantive and procedural issues. Severalthemes were selected due to their doctrinal or practical importance. TheCommentary focuseson decisions related to the invalidity of administrative acts (II.), the definitionand scopeof administrative contracts (III.), the admissibility requirement of individual concern (IV.), issues related to the calculation of deadlines (V.),and the application of constitutional lawby the Court (VI.). In addition, we address severalnoteworthy decisions that dealt with specific legal issues orthat were noteworthyfor other reasons(VII.).